I think I know what happened. Datalore shows a top view of both a TOS Connie and a refit Connie, but the 1700 registry is only on the TOS one. I must have gotten them confused in my memory.
That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form
- Thread starter ChallengerHK
- Start date
I think I know what happened. Datalore shows a top view of both a TOS Connie and a refit Connie, but the 1700 registry is only on the TOS one. I must have gotten them confused in my memory.
mea culpa.
Still, in fairness to Dukhat, IIRC, that sequence also includes top and side views of the refit.
Last edited:
The US Navy did build a supply ship, AOE-6, that they named USS Supply. The class ship, as a matter of fact.
That last part, that Constitution and 1700 aren't linked, was the meaning.
However, all of this has brought up a possibility, but I can't use it and you won't like it. Wouldn't . . .
STAR SHIP MK IX/01
CONSTITUTION CLASS
. . . tend to suggest the possibility, in Jefferiesist theory, that a Constitution Class ship should be NCC-9xx? That is, as opposed to a (Starship Class?) MK XVII like the Enterprise?
Yes, that’s right. Or, more accurately, I’ve been trying to make the point that saying the numbers are happenstance or the product of rush or because of a desire to differentiate Constellation from Enterprise are all also assumptions. We know Jefferies had a plan. That isn’t an assumption. When you conjecture it’s not a bad idea to start with an established fact.
Let me admit that given the realities and aims of television production, which are ALSO established facts, I think you boys are probably right. But we have two competing established facts - one more likely than the other to be sure, but they are both fine as the basis for conjecture. And the connection you accuse me of trying to make is one of those conjectures based on a fact.
Well, you are seeing what I said from one side that happens to be the wrong side. When I said I thought he would have used that 1697 number I said it was because the model looked like Enterprise, the number was close to Enterprise’s, the number was distinct from Enterprise’s, and I assume all that mattered.
But then I turned around and said because he DIDN’T choose 1697, maybe there was meaning in what he DID choose, ie that 1017 was not just a flip flop decal.
Of course. And I appreciate your forbearance. Like I said, I’m probably wrong. But your idea and my idea are both conjectures. Neither is a certainty.
I think we are saying sort of the same thing. Cut the decal in half so that you have “17” and “01”. Cut “01” in half. Flip the “1” and “0” so you have “10”. Flip the “17” from the front to the back so you have “1017”.
I’m merely pointing out that is more complicated than just cutting it in half.
Ah. That is a good question. The only reasonable answer was presented by someone above when they observed that “U.S.S. CONSTELLATION” looked as if it was maybe in Eurostile - maybe press type. And that while such a shortcut might be gotten away with for the smaller name, it would be too obvious on the big registry number.
That observation lends credence to the expediency argument. It doesn’t however, explain why somebody would choose the lowest number - 1017 - instead of 1071, 1170, or 1107. They picked the number furthest away from 1701 for a ship that looked like 1701. And 1170 for instance, has none of the combinations of numbers in 1701 - it is the most visually distinct. And it would have only required cutting the decal into four parts instead of three.
Because it looked too much like 1701.
Yep. And we don’t know if he was just splicing decals. We don’t know what he was doing.
I think the “MK IX/01” is showing it is a heavy cruiser, just as Franz Joseph interpreted it to be saying. According to Greg Tyler’s interview with Franz Joseph on his Trekplace website, FJ met Jefferies when he was consulting on one of Roddenberry’s post-Trek projects. He would have had ample opportunity to ask him such questions as what that meant, and what the NCC numbers were supposed to mean - which is why I think FJ followed Jefferies’ numbering scheme - making all the Enterprise’s sister ships 17th generation.
Funny, Just watched that movie the other night.
I'm no expert, but my recollections from circa 1990 was that there was a very mild adhesive on the back side of those sliding decals which, if applicable to 1960s models, would serve as something of an impediment to that plan.
I hypothesized about that _here_.
Now, as to why 1717 wasn't what happened . . . who knows, maybe the damn little second decal tore and they used what they could. Not that I'm still hating on those 35 years later, mind you. (Twitch)
For what it's worth, it appears that they reversed more than the one decal. You can make out the 7 of 1017 on the nacelle in this screenshot:
Presumably, all other registry locations were also changed, with the idea of being able to film the model from different angles. If so, you'd need five custom decals if you choose to not use the kit's numbers.
Presumably, all other registry locations were also changed, with the idea of being able to film the model from different angles. If so, you'd need five custom decals if you choose to not use the kit's numbers.
There's a few ways to parse that.
- The Constitution Class is the 9th Federation Star Ship design.
- The Enterprise's current configuration is the 9th iteration of the Constitution Class.
- 'Star Ship' is the fundamental design of saucer, service section and engine pods, joined by pylons, of which only the 9th version is Constitution Class.
Personally I'm quite fond of the third option, because it brings together a lot of canon and fanon lore.
As I've noted previously, it means the Starship has been around for a long time, maybe even a late 22nd century Daedalus successor.
The Constellation then fits into that lineage, maintaining registry chronology. Possibly she was built as a Mk II Starship and has subsequently been upgraded to Mk VIII or IX specs.
It also allows for the Enterprise to be Constitution Class, and the USS Constitution to be NCC-1700. We know the Enterprise isn't a new ship, so perhaps she was originally built as a Mk VII Starship (pilot version) and refitted to TV series/Mk IX specs.
The 1700 series were the most successful and enduring, such that the entire class of Starships was retrospectively called simply "Constitution Class" to reflect a change in Starfleet naming convention.
As you say, it is interesting that Jefferies picked Mk IX for the graphic instead of XVII. More evidence that the Enterprise being of the seventeenth starship design did not make it to screen.
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize that wasn't known. You can see it better in the image I shared earlier:
I didn't bring it up because it was a whole separate thing to look at, but at the time I was wondering if that wasn't the same size as "U.S.S. CONSTELLATION" and thus possibly the same Letraset transfer set rather than a decal. I would want to better look at it to be sure, and I didn't go dig up another image (if there is one ... but I thought there was a decent side shot at some point, like with the single phaser beam strike).
With respect to decal manipulation to make NCC-1017, for the sake of completeness, it's worth pointing out that there are two ways to make 1017 from 1701 with the same degree of minimal fuss, by only two snips:
Also, with respect to the question of why 1017, if we consider all possible permutations using a single decal, there are some interesting results. If we reject a leading 0 as starting a number that's too low and/or one that should have been three digits to begin with, and we reject a leading 7 as starting a number that's too high, then there are only five possibilities (not counting 1701).
Of these five, there are only two that, besides the leading 1, have no digit in the same position as 1701. These two would be the ones that are arguably most visually distinct from 1701. These two are:
Both of these can be made with two snips of the decal in two different ways (three in fact, in the case of 1170, if you count that in the first example below, there are two ways to order the 1s). The ways for 1017 were shown above. For 1170, we have:
I'm not saying that making the Constellation's registry number as distinct as possible from the Enterprise's is why 1017 was chosen, but in my opinion it is an interesting observation nonetheless. The only outstanding question would be, then, why 1017 and not 1170? Both appear to be equally good candidates. Perhaps the choice was simply random.
But if you need an additional reason, one is in fact available, and that is that 1017 is more visually distinguishable on the left from 1701, because at the second position, 0 looks less like 7 than 1 does.
And there we have it. The use of these two principles would have made the choice unique, 1) making sure none of the free digits are in the same position as they are in 1701, so that no matter where you look (after the first digit at least, which as argued must be the same) you will see a different digit and 2) maximizing the distinction on the left, so that when the number is read left to right you can see the distinction most easily in the least amount of time.
Of course, none of this means that it's why the selection was made.
edited to add - This post did not take into account the possibility of effectively rotating the decals as described down-thread in post #364: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/that-starbase-11-wall-chart-noe-in-slide-form.319240/post-15269618
See also post #366 regarding the curved baseline that the decals apparently had in the original kit:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/that-starbase-11-wall-chart-noe-in-slide-form.319240/post-15269641
1701 >> 17 0 1 >> 1 0 17 >> 1017
1701 >> 1 7 01 >> 1 01 7 >> 1017
Also, with respect to the question of why 1017, if we consider all possible permutations using a single decal, there are some interesting results. If we reject a leading 0 as starting a number that's too low and/or one that should have been three digits to begin with, and we reject a leading 7 as starting a number that's too high, then there are only five possibilities (not counting 1701).
1017
1071
1107
1170
1710
Of these five, there are only two that, besides the leading 1, have no digit in the same position as 1701. These two would be the ones that are arguably most visually distinct from 1701. These two are:
1017
1170
Both of these can be made with two snips of the decal in two different ways (three in fact, in the case of 1170, if you count that in the first example below, there are two ways to order the 1s). The ways for 1017 were shown above. For 1170, we have:
1701 >> 1 70 1 >> 1 1 70 >> 1170
1701 >> 17 0 1 >> 1 17 0 >> 1170
The last example has the same snip pattern as the first example for making 1017, it's just that the final arrangement is different.I'm not saying that making the Constellation's registry number as distinct as possible from the Enterprise's is why 1017 was chosen, but in my opinion it is an interesting observation nonetheless. The only outstanding question would be, then, why 1017 and not 1170? Both appear to be equally good candidates. Perhaps the choice was simply random.
But if you need an additional reason, one is in fact available, and that is that 1017 is more visually distinguishable on the left from 1701, because at the second position, 0 looks less like 7 than 1 does.
And there we have it. The use of these two principles would have made the choice unique, 1) making sure none of the free digits are in the same position as they are in 1701, so that no matter where you look (after the first digit at least, which as argued must be the same) you will see a different digit and 2) maximizing the distinction on the left, so that when the number is read left to right you can see the distinction most easily in the least amount of time.
Of course, none of this means that it's why the selection was made.
edited to add - This post did not take into account the possibility of effectively rotating the decals as described down-thread in post #364: https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/that-starbase-11-wall-chart-noe-in-slide-form.319240/post-15269618
See also post #366 regarding the curved baseline that the decals apparently had in the original kit:
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/that-starbase-11-wall-chart-noe-in-slide-form.319240/post-15269641
Last edited:
Well, I've known it for a long time but the discussion in this thread made it sound like others didn't. So...
---------------
As to decals, from what I've seen, the original decal sheet may have had only seven individual components:
- the port nacelle pennant and registry
- the starboard nacelle pennant and registry
- the port secondary hull pennant
- the starboard secondary hull pennant
- the port underside primary hull registry
- the starboard underside primary hull registry
- and the primary hull registry and name
So, a lot more snipping involved than just inverting some numbers...but still cheaper than custom decals, I'm sure.
That's a shocking way to find out that I can no longer view Imgur files in the United Kingdom!!!!!
Based on the digit angles, it appears to me that the latter option was what was chosen.
Not saying it was difficult, per se, but more involved than you imply because none of the 1701s were isolated on their own.
So, for a nacelle, you end up cutting the one applique into four parts to achieve the number flip. That'd be, front pennant NCC-, 17, 01, back pennant (the other nacelle would be slightly different with NCC - attached to the back pennant instead of the front. .So one application has become four, and eight for the two nacelles.
For the the underside registries, one applique becomes three parts, NCC-, 17, 01, then flip, and so six applications for the pair.
For the top of the saucer, first you have to cut away the name before you can have at the registry. But here, you just can't cut 1701 in half because the splay of the digits has to be taken into account. here, you're probably going to end up with three applications, NCC-1, 01, 7.
So, adding the two unmodified secondary hull decals, the original decal sheet's seven applications has become nineteen.
It occurs to me that that whoever chose 1017 and for whatever reason, could have saved us all a lot of trouble if they had just gone with 17 first and then had some scorch marks or battle damage obscuring the last two digits everywhere the numbers appear on the model?
As noted earlier, that would've been difficult. You'd have to achieve total coverage of the hidden digits while not ripping or heating the decal right beside it in the process (so it wouldn't crinkle up weirdly).
Or just...paint the scorching and battle damage onto the saucer?
